Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Peak Oil Lie: Oil is NOT going to run out

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


I'm not sure what your point is, exactly.

Yes, we've increased fuel efficiency after the oil embargo in the 1970's, when production peaked in the U.S. It's pretty much flat-lined since. Yes, we could further increase efficiency if we truly wanted to, but there seems to be a variety of reasons why this isn't done. First off, Americans prefer bigger products to consume and use than most of the rest of the world. It matches our ego. Secondly, there could very well be collusion between the big 3 and the petroleum industry to sell more oil. If this is the case, a third factor would be that these giants (which two are now partially state owned) make it nearly impossible for start up automotive companies in the U.S. to become successful and more fuel-efficient, due to their sheer influence.


Outside of fuel efficiency increase, the other side of the equation is pure population increase, and the footprint each individual has. Our petroleum consumption comes into thousands of other factors than pure gasoline used by automobiles. Even though petroleum based products (think plastic) can be made from alternative sources, the truth is very little is currently being produced this way, and the time needed to scale up viable solutions means a major crunch is inevitable.

The bottom line is that peak oil is being realized, and we're not adapting as we should to not be greatly affected as a society. I'm not shouting doom and gloom, rather saying that times are going to get rougher. When you take an integrative look at not only the raw objective measurements, but also the subjective psychology interacting with it, you get a picture that screams, "danger ahead" !!!
edit on 5-2-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


The bottom line is that peak oil is being realized, and we're not adapting as we should to not be greatly affected as a society. I'm not shouting doom and gloom, rather saying that times are going to get rougher. When you take an integrative look at not only the raw objective measurements, but also the subjective psychology interacting with it, you get a picture that screams, "danger ahead" !!!
edit on 5-2-2012 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)


That is at least part of my point as I stated earlier. If it is a finite resource in danger or running out soon, why has there been almost zero effort from governments to change that? Surely they are the controlling experts? I see little other viable alternative being offered with the possible exception of one or two electric/hybrid cars. A few wind farms that have been left to fall into disrepair and those silly photo-voltaic cells with limited efficiency do not really count when seen globally in context. IMHO



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


This is a good question, and I don't have a solid answer.

There is more in the works than you mentioned, though. One thing that the government has funded heavily recently is algae-oil. The military has committed to using a certain percentage quickly.




Jet fuel Main article: Aviation biofuel Rising jet fuel prices are putting severe pressure on airline companies,[24] creating an incentive for algal jet fuel research. The International Air Transport Association, for example, supports research, development and deployment of algal fuels. IATA’s goal is for its members to be using 10% alternative fuels by 2017.[25] Trials have been carried with aviation biofuel by Air New Zealand,[26] and Virgin Airlines.[27] In February 2010, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced that the U.S. military was about to begin large-scale production oil from algal ponds into jet fuel. After extraction at a cost of $2 per gallon, the oil will be refined at less than $3 a gallon. A larger-scale refining operation, producing 50 million gallons a year, is expected to go into production in 2013, with the possibility of lower per gallon costs so that algae-based fuel would be competitive with fossil fuels. The projects, run by the companies SAIC and General Atomics, are expected to produce 1,000 gallons of oil per acre per year from algal ponds.


Wiki: Algae --Jet Fuel--

So at least the war machine will be insulated from the crunch



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tinman67
I think the whole idea of the continued use and dependency on fossil fuels, in and of itself, is the problem, not the availability or the lack of future availability.
That was the point of this thread. The con results in two things.

1. Artificially high oil prices to the detriment of most humans alive.

2. A lack of urgency in the replacement of oil/coal as people wrongly believe this will just happen as a natural progression.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
That is at least part of my point as I stated earlier. If it is a finite resource in danger or running out soon, why has there been almost zero effort from governments to change that? Surely they are the controlling experts? I see little other viable alternative being offered with the possible exception of one or two electric/hybrid cars. A few wind farms that have been left to fall into disrepair and those silly photo-voltaic cells with limited efficiency do not really count when seen globally in context. IMHO
Precisely. This is a classic and to my mind transparent conspiracy that needs to be publicised as much as possible. Big changes are needed in how our world is run, for all our sakes.
edit on 5/2/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
you mean like it was running out in the 70s? we have plenty of oil to get us through to alternative fuel sources, we are just being scammed out of more money.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Wow, oil is not going to run out ?!
Ever ?
Like, never ?!
Holy ripped nylons Batman, a miracle has been bestowed upon us !!


It really will never run out. If you gave the issue of a peak oil, finite resources or economics in general more than a cursory thought this should be rather obvious too! Have we stopped mining gold? How long have we been at gold, iron and copper mining? Are they 'peaking' and if so did it matter?

At least your funny.....

Stellar



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


We've been mining metals for a long time. We have a pretty good understanding of how much is left, and how long our supplies will last based on current demand. You should look into this. They are "peaking" in the sense that prices are rising. Look at how much copper has skyrocketed in the last decade
That's why people are stripping metals from public places for scraps.

Most of the metals are set to be fully extracted this century. Of course, civilization won't last that long! The only other option is getting our resources from outer space.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
We've been mining metals for a long time. We have a pretty good understanding of how much is left, and how long our supplies will last based on current demand. You should look into this.


We have been mining metals for thousands of years and yet they are no closer to becoming exhausted today than they were 2000 years ago. We do not know how much resources is left in the ground, where they are or for that matter how much there might be overall. We most certainly do not know how much we can extract with current technology but neither did anyone 2000 years ago.

If you did look into this i am disappointed for you.


They are "peaking" in the sense that prices are rising. Look at how much copper has skyrocketed in the last decade
That's why people are stripping metals from public places for scraps.


People strip metal from public places because the chances of them getting caught is pretty small and it beats trying to get a real job that does not pay nearly as well. When metal prices rise it is because demand is outstripping supply and there is as always only a very casual connection with actual 'metals/resource in the ground'. If some nations consider it wise to hoard strategic minerals instead of putting their 'money' into USD or other currency's , or generally investing it, why does that prove anything in your mind?


Unlike fossil fuels, however, copper is scrapped and reused and it has been estimated that at least 80% of all copper ever mined is still available (having been repeatedly recycled)


and:


In his book The Ultimate Resource 2, Julian Simon extensively criticizes the notion of "peak resources", and uses copper as one example. He argues that, even though "peak copper" has been a persistent scare since the early 20th century, "known reserves" grew at a rate that outpaced demand, and the price of copper was not rising but falling in the long run. For example, even though world production of copper in 1950 was only 1/8th of what it was today, known reserves were also much lower at the time – around 100 million metric tons – making it appear that the world would run out of copper in 40 to 50 years at most (which has not proven to be the case).
Simon's own explanation for this development is that the very notion of known reserves is deeply flawed,[21] as it does not take into account changes in mining profitability. As richer mines are exhausted, developers turn their attention to poorer sources of the element and eventually develop cheap methods of extracting it, rising "known reserves". Thus, for example, copper was so abundant 5000 years ago, occurring in pure form as well as in highly concentrated copper ores, that prehistoric peoples were able to collect and process it with very basic technology. As of the early 21st century, copper is commonly mined from ores that contain 0.3% to 0.6% of copper by weight. Yet, despite the fact that the material is far less "widespread", the cost of, for example, a copper pot is vastly lower today in real terms than it was 5000 years ago.[22]

en.wikipedia.org...



Most of the metals are set to be fully extracted this century. Of course, civilization won't last that long! The only other option is getting our resources from outer space.


www.bgs.ac.uk...

According to me there is no evidence that we will be running out of economically viable metals any century soon but your probably right that the civilization might end before that given the non scientific rubbish the average person will both believe in and be manipulated with. It really is not so much a question of 'trusting' the geologist as much it is one of taking a cursory glance at extraction&profitability in recent centuries.

Stellar



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

We have been mining metals for thousands of years and yet they are no closer to becoming exhausted today than they were 2000 years ago.


I'm not sure how you expect anyone to believe this. It's an obvious lie. If we've extracted more, we're closer than in the past.


We do not know how much resources is left in the ground, where they are or for that matter how much there might be overall. We most certainly do not know how much we can extract with current technology but neither did anyone 2000 years ago.


These are lies as well.

Listen, in the past we could just run from the fact that we polluted an area, and ravaged it of it's resources. We could find new land, and start all over again. Now, we're practically everywhere. There's no place to run to, except up and out. You can sit here and deny this all you want, but the data is there for curious minds to research. I see no reason to waste my time trying to debate this. Your mind is obviously closed. So what. It doesn't change the truth.

Good day, sir.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
you mean like it was running out in the 70s? we have plenty of oil to get us through to alternative fuel sources, we are just being scammed out of more money.


Peak oil is dependent on the technologies available to extract the oil. If we were stuck with 70's level technology today, we would have been long past "peak oil" and in a decline.

Things change, it's not to say the threat or worry isn't real when it comes about though.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
For those of you that are afraid we are running out of oil, spend an hour or so researching the Bakken.
For those of you that think only Big Oil is making money, I bet you start running into people....maybe even on this site.......that have found themselves a reason to hop and skip to their mailbox at least once a month.
The fracking moves the decimal point....so I have been told.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Oil is a collection of various hydrocarbon chains. Carbon is the 15th most abundant element in the Earth's crust, and even more abundant in the Universe. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe by far. So oil is a combination of two abundant elements. Inside the Earth's crust, these two elements can and will combine chemically in the absence of oxygen and the presence of pressure and temperature.

The theory is abiotic (not of living origin) oil, and it states that while there may well be a limit to how fast oil can be withdrawn, there is no real limit to how much can be withdrawn from the planet. It explains why some dead oil wells comeback to life after sitting idle a few years, as well as why oil is in such abundance in certain areas where there has no been enough life (so far as we know) to account for biotic oil production.

The economic chain of events is another, more complex story, however. It starts in the oil producing countries as the black gold is pumped out of the ground. Almost all oil producing countries that have excess oil to export are members of OPEC - the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The few who are not members, such as Venezuela, still tend to follow the policies of OPEC. Those policies set the price the countries receive from their oil as well as the amount of oil that will be pumped. If needed, OPEC has the ability to produce many times as much oil as we need; but they will not do so.

Diamonds, if market forces were allowed to freely prevail, would be worth a small fraction of their present value. The only way they achieve this high value is through market forces manipulation. South Africa has warehouses upon warehouses full of natural diamonds mined from the diamond mines, but they will not be sold. Why? Because limiting the supply of a commodity raises its value.

Oil works the same way. The limits on production are there to ensure that the prices are kept high.

Now the oil is for sale in a manipulated market. Who buys it? How do they buy it? Is there a WalMart for oil? No, there's a market. The oil is typically bought months, even years before it is pumped, by investors. These investors are betting that the cost of oil will increase and they will make a lot of money... if it decreases, they still get a little return, however, since they buy direct from the producer and sell to the customer. They can always sit on the oil and let that lack of availability raise the price.

The oil companies do get in on this a little as well, but not to the extent investors do. But since the investors sell to the oil companies, it is of little consequence to them. They just mark their prices up to cover the cost. The oil companies then refine the oil, break it down into fairly pure types of fuels and oils. Gasoline is one of the lightest, followed by diesel fuel, heating oil, and so on until the very heaviest chains are sold as tar to be used in making asphalt. That's where the difference comes in between different types of crude oil: it all depends on how much gasoline, how much diesel, and so on can be obtained from each barrel.

Refineries then sell to fuel distributors, who in turn sell to gas stations, convenience stores, etc. who then sell to us. In the mix, the government steps in and adds taxes on the fuel... a LOT of taxes! Not just the Federal government, but the states get their share as well. All this goes into the cost of a gallon of gas, along with the cost of all the Federally-mandated chemicals which are used to, among other things, decrease the volatility of the gasoline and make it harder for the engine to burn efficiently.

Most gasoline retailers also have standing contracts with fuel suppliers which limit the prices they can charge. Again, this is an attempt to manipulate the market. If one rogue station decided to sell gasoline for too little, then people would expect the lower prices from the rest of the stations, and slow their purchases when the price was at 'normal' levels. The truth is that the gas stations themselves make very little on the gasoline they sell; most of their profit comes from soft drinks and snacks.

Now that you know why the cost is so high, it is easy to see how the amount of production has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how much oil can be produced; it has to do with how much oil needs to be produced in order to maximize profits across the board. You should also be able to understand why the US is not drilling its own oil; it would drop the worldwide price of oil and tick off a lot of OPEC countries... who would then shut us off and we would become 100% dependent on our own oil... not a bad idea IMO, but considering our oil costs more to produce than OPEC's oil costs to buy, it would reduce profits to those involved in oil.

Bottom line: there is no oil shortage.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
If I only waited to post I wouldn't have had to....Redneck said it way better than I did or ever could, spot on.
edit on 6-2-2012 by Res Ipsa because: none



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

Good post RedNeck. That is a more in depth way of saying this.


Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by Tinman67
I think the whole idea of the continued use and dependency on fossil fuels, in and of itself, is the problem, not the availability or the lack of future availability.
That was the point of this thread. The con results in two things.

1. Artificially high oil prices to the detriment of most humans alive.

2. A lack of urgency in the replacement of oil/coal as people wrongly believe this will just happen as a natural progression.

Now cue Boncho with lots of smoke and mirror, there is no alternative BS.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Limit the supply

Increase the demand/price

Make more $$$$$$ in the long run

Control the oil, control the WWWORLD



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck


Now that you know why the cost is so high, it is easy to see how the amount of production has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how much oil can be produced;

 


Not entirely.

I really did enjoy your post, as you captured some very important things about how oil gets to market. Yet you say oil availability hasn't changed or will not change and I don't believe that.

Production is based on a lot of things, regardless if it is being artificially controlled. Availability, has nothing to do with production as you pointed out.

Oil availability goes up and down because as much as people are manipulating the market one way, they are doing it the other way too.


New oil reserves are being discovered but only at the rate of 6 billion barrels per year which offsets only 20 per cent of consumption. The truth is that Unconventional Oil is being relabeled as Proven Reserves. The big jump in 2003, highlighted in yellow, is due to the inclusion of Canadian tar sand. The inclusion of Canadian tar sand in a table of world oil reserves seems to imply that the tar sand is a recent discovery of a Proven Reserve. Tar sand is not oil; it does not go in pipes, it is not feedstock for refineries and it is not a recent discovery.
Link


There are no reliable estimates of world oil reserves available to the public. The numbers some countries report are honest and accurate, but other countries clearly manipulate the numbers for various reasons. The table below shows the numbers reported by certain OPEC countries to the Oil & Gas Journal in this egregious example. The highlighted numbers are suspicious because because of the large, synchronized jumps.


Table can be found in this link

Saudi Arabia 163 165 165 162 166 169 169 167 167 170 257 257 258 259 259 259 259 259 259

1980-1998

That's a huge jump. If this massive jump is just because the wells are filling back up, would that mean this is the biggest conspiracy in the world? Or is someone lying about having something they don't?




the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The few who are not members, such as Venezuela, still tend to follow the policies of OPEC.



Strange, you should tell one of the founding members of OPEC that they are no longer part of the membership.

OPEC




Oil works the same way. The limits on production are there to ensure that the prices are kept high.


Technically, the prices aren't that high. Much higher than they used to be, but as little as 10 years ago the prices were cheaper than in the 50's. (Taking inflation into account)

1950 $2.77 $25.99
1999 $16.56 $22.38

Link

So yes, a lot of it has to do with artificial manipulation. But, why is there all this manipulation if people's wells simply refill themselves?

The fact is, is that there is a ton of strategy employed by a number of nations all trying to stay off their own oil and use other peoples.

If wells simply filled back up again in a few years, there would not be wide scale increase in dangerous oil exploration projects. IMO.


n 1998 Petroconsultants was in the business of providing data and analysis for petroleum exploration and production. Petroconsultants had headquarters in Geneva and offices in London, Houston, Sydney and Singapore. They were supported by over 250 multilingual and multinational employees and a worldwide network of correspondents and associates. Petroconsultants was the biggest and it was extensively used by all big oil companies including, presumably, BP.

In 1998 a magazine, Scientific American, published an article called The End of Cheap Oil coauthored by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. LaHeréere. Both authors were employees of Petroconsultants at the time. The article was probably a free peek at Petroconsultant's database. This article awakened many to the problem of oil depletion and peak oil. It is a classic and well worth reading. It may be old but it is good and you can read it here.

IHS Energy (Information Handling Services) bought Petroconsultants in 1999.[3] IHS has a web site you can look at here. Both Campbell and LaHeréere were either cashiered or they retired in 1999. Campbell continues to this day to be eloquent and tireless in warning the world about oil depletion.[4] He founded ASPO (Association for the Study of Peak Oil) in 2000.[5] Jean H. LaHeréere is also still active. He has many publications and he is active in ASPO. Jean H. LaHeréere critiques his own Scientific American article here.


For the mentioned links, visit the source article

edit on 7-2-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


So now we have public oil companies who raise capital everytime they have a new reserve to exploit. We have countries that are using reserves as political power.


And we are supposed to trust them that they keep finding more oil in places they forgot to look?

Of course much opens up because of new technologies (as earlier mentioned), but really now, you think they wouldn't lie about what they have?


ROI means the accounting is done in dollars. EROEI means the accounting is done in energy. Distinguishing between ROI and EROEI changes the way you look at fossil fuels. It takes energy to make the steel used to make an oil well or an oil pipe line. It takes energy to drill for oil and to transport it. If it takes too much energy the EROEI will be less than one.

An EROEI of 200 was achieved with some oil wells 50 years ago. Oil production in deep water currently achieves an EROEI of less than 5.


Link

Here is something interesting, why are they burning more energy up to get the same out?

Increased costs allows this, but that does not mean increased profit.



As oil becomes harder to extract, it also becomes more expensive, which opens up vast amounts of oil that were previously uneconomic. When we start to run out of oil, we take a step down the "resource pyramid" and start using the far larger (and more expensive) oil at the lower stratum. The result is that supply of oil increases, as price increases.

For this reason, oil production worldwide will not follow a bell curve or anything similar. Instead, oil will peak and then prices will gradually increase, thereby allowing us to extract previously uneconomic resources, and thereby preventing any decline.


The oil pyramid.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Pimander


Now cue Boncho with lots of smoke and mirror, there is no alternative BS.

 


I did my best. Let me know when you need more.




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho

That's a huge jump. If this massive jump is just because the wells are filling back up, would that mean this is the biggest conspiracy in the world? Or is someone lying about having something they don't?

Obviously someone is... well, perhaps not lying, but definitely playing numbers. But I don't see how someone's playing around with numbers and definitions for economic positioning has much to do with the concern over peak oil. The last time I checked, the planet didn't really care what puny humans inhabiting (infesting?) its surface had to say.


Strange, you should tell one of the founding members of OPEC that they are no longer part of the membership.

I already admitted that some countries (and specified Venezuela) are not part of OPEC... but they do tend to follow along with OPEC unofficialy.


But, why is there all this manipulation if people's wells simply refill themselves?

Why is there such manipulation of the diamond market if there are warehouses upon warehouses filled with the shiny rocks? The fact that one has a surplus of a commodity does not indicate that one wishes that commodity to lower in value. In fact, the reverse is true... what is the difference between 5 gazillion barrels at $25 per or 5 gazillion barrels at $100 per? 375 gazillion dollars.


The fact is, is that there is a ton of strategy employed by a number of nations all trying to stay off their own oil and use other peoples.

As I mentioned in my post... so what are we arguing about?


If wells simply filled back up again in a few years, there would not be wide scale increase in dangerous oil exploration projects. IMO.

Abiotic theory is not that simple. Oil is not going to start just seeping out of the ground. It will be produced due to a myriad of chemical reactions that can (and do) occur within the earth's crust, at locations determined by the availability of necessary chemicals in each location.

One well may indeed replenish, while others may not... or some may sit dry for years and then suddenly start replenishing.

Here is a good starting link (yes, it's Wiki, I know) for some of those reactions.

Seeing as class just started here, the rest of your post will have to wait for a response.

TheRedneck






top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join